[ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ

Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksmith at adhost.com
Mon Oct 15 18:43:12 EDT 2007

Hello Dean:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf
> Dean Anderson
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:26 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: Randy Bush; Public Policy Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > Well, Randy and Dean, I'm going to address both of you since you
> > to be on the same side here.
> >
> > See here.  The non-legacy community doesen't have infinite patience
> > in dealing with you.  The legacy RSA that is coming up for
> is
> > the paying communities attempt to accomodate your desires.  You
> > like it, well frankly not all of us like it either.  You can choose
> to
> > participate in the discussion to try to make the legacy RSA proposal
> > more to your liking or not.
> The legacy community doesn't have infinite patience in dealing with
> ungrateful non-legacy community that doesn't have respect for the
> obligations it undertook to obtain the privilege of operating a
> registry
> service.
> This is why we legacies need to work together to fight ARIN in Court
> necessary, and form a separate Legacy Registry.  This is in both our
> interests, it turns out.  A number of legacies have already contacted
> me
> offlist. But we need to get the word out to other legacies. Unfairly,
> ARIN has this list of legacies, but hasn't shared it. ARIN hasn't even
> acknowledged that there are other points of view in its FAQ. ARIN
> hasn't
> given any notice to legacies that they may have any other options at
> all.  ARIN continues to create fear and has failed to repudiate
> from individuals that serve to induce fear. ARIN has accomplished
> inducement through action and inaction with the sole purpose of
> obtaining, unlawfully, the property and contract rights of legacy IP
> Address Registration holders.
> Letter to Demand Documents
> ARIN has also not yet provided the documents and correspondence
> relevant
> to its formation that establish the agreements and the terms it
> understood and undertook.  I am preparing a written letter to demand
> this information. If you want to sign the letter, please contact me
> offlist.  Both legacies and non-legacies have an interest in these
> documents and both may want to sign the letter.
> Mutual Interest in Legacy Registry
> Through some offlist discussion, it was pointed out that IPv4
> registration services will eventually transition to a 'low volume of
> changes' mode, suitable for nearly automated operation.  Legacies
> already have a 'low volume of changes' mode, and so the ultimate goals
> of ARIN and the Legacies in further automating registry operations is
> consistent and beneficial.  By the time non-legacies get to a low
> volume
> of change mode, a Legacy Registry will have a great deal of
> experience on the subject.
> So, assuming your intention is not merely to steal Legacy space from
> Legacies, and that you just want to rid yourself of the burden (small
> though it is) of maintaining legacy registrations, you should have no
> objection to establishing a Legacy Registry. You should look forward
> our results and, once again, benefiting from our experience.
> There is one thing that has been nagging me just a little. Ted said
> other day that BSD code was imported into the GPL. There are a few
> points about that claim:
> 1). With few, if any exceptions, the GPL unix-replacement programs are
> complete rewrites and are not copies of BSD code. The rewrites are
> often
> better than the originals. It was necessary to undertake rewrites
> because at the time these efforts began, BSD unix was not freely
> available. It was encumbered by the ATT copyright. You needed to
> purchase a Unix source license from ATT before you could get the BSD
> code.  This was one of the reasons for the formation of the OSF by
> major
> computer vendors.
> 2). The problem with the free BSD copyright is that it doesn't prevent
> anyone from taking it private, or subjecting it to new terms. All that
> one has to do is acknowlege Berkeley as the author. Without getting
> into
> a this/that copyright discussion, this is basically the reason that
> created the GPL.  The point here is this: It would have been perfectly
> legal for FSF to take the BSD code with the appropriate notice, had
> code been free. But this didn't happen because BSD wasn't free at the
> time.
> 3). The reason that you have free BSD copyright programs for *bsd
> unix-like operating system is because the OSF funded the completion of
> the free BSD 4.4 release. If OSF hadn't funded that, the Berkeley CSRG
> would have shut down several years before 4.4 could be completed,
> leaving only the tiny BSD net2 release.  BSD 4.3 _still_ requires a
> source license, from SCO or Novell or both. [I forget who owns Unix
> Source code these days. The Open Group (formerly OSF) owns the Unix
> trademark and does the certification.]
> 4). It so happens, ironically, that I am the contact for the OSF
> space.  So, we see now that Ted and others are quite happy to reap the
> benefit of millions spent by OSF so they can run *BSD for free, but
> they
> begrudge the legacy registration services. I can tell you that OSF
> supported CSRG because it was realized that it was the right thing to
> do, and someone had to step up and complete this valuable research
> project.
> Perhaps if Ted can change the agreements that led to free legacy IP
> Address registrations, we can change the agreements that led to free
> software. Maybe we can charge Ted and others $100,000 for source
> licenses. Wouldn't that be great?  I don't think so. I think we should
> stick by the past agreements.
> 		--Dean

The establishment of a Legacy Registry and the BSD copyright are not
discussions related to ARIN policy.  Please take the discussion of the
Legacy Registry to arin-discuss and take the discussion of the BSD
copyright "someplace else". 



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list